Screwing With and Screwing the Elderly and Disabled
Social Security checks to rise just 0.3% in 2017
Social Security got short shrift in the presidential "debates" this year, meriting only a brief mention at the end of the third event, and even then, only by Hillary Clinton, who vowed not to cut benefits in any effort to bolster the system's funding (a promise she was only grudgingly pushed into by Sen. Bernie Sanders' primary campaign).
But the truth is that benefits have been getting cut, are being cut in 2017, and unless something is done, will continue to be cut in the future. This is because the method used to calculate the annual adjustment for inflation each year is, to borrow a phrase popular with Donald Trump, "rigged."
Just consider this: The Consumer Price Index or CPI, actually the CPI-U version of the index which is used by nearly all federal agencies, including the IRS (which uses it to recalibrate tax brackets each year), found inflation in the US running at 0.73% in 2015, and at 2.07% year-to-date through September 2016 (it was 1.46% for the 12-month period Oct. 2015 through Sept. 2016, suggesting that the rate has actually been accelerating through the latter part of this year. Yet the modified version of the CPI, called CPI-W, which Congress since 1983 has mandated that the Social Security Administration use to calculate cost-of-living adjustments in Social Security benefits, showed no inflation in 2015, and only 0.3% inflation for 2016.
That's why Social Security beneficiaries -- the elderly, the disabled and dependent children of Social Security beneficiaries -- received no increase in their benefits during 2016 over the prior year, and why their benefit checks in 2017 will only increase by a paltry 0.3% (That would be a measly extra $4.50 a month or $54 for the year for someone receiving a typical Social Security benefit check of $1500 per month!).
Now reasonable people can argue whether the elderly and disabled spend more or less than other Americans on food, on entertainment, on transportation or on health care, but anyone who claims that the elderly have faced no higher costs during 2016 than in 2015, or that 2017 won't cost them more than $54 extra than they had to pay to survive in 2016 is, to put it simply, lying.
Anyone but a rich person who doesn't even look at what she or he is spending knows that groceries are more expensive, that bus and taxi fares are up, and that the cost of cars, car repairs and car insurance have risen. Health care costs are rising too, as well as health insurance costs. So are rents. Basically everything the elderly have to pay for has gone up in price each year, but their mainstay -- and for 33% of the elderly, Social Security is their only source of income, while for 61% it represents more than half their income -- has stayed essentially flat.
That reality is documented by the broader CPI-U measure used by the rest of the government. If that measure had been used to calculate Social Security cost-of-living benefits, instead of the CPI-W, that same typical recipient of $1500 in monthly Social Security benefits would have seen that checks rise by $11/month and $131 for the year in 2016 and would see a rise in 2017 of $30 per month and $360 for the year!
Obviously something is amiss here.
Yet incredibly, instead of taking action to correct this political stiffing of the elderly and infirm, many in Congress, and until enormous protests caused him to back off, President Obama, have been pushing the idea of actually making things worse by shifting from the already bad CPI-W index to something called a "chained-CPI" for calculating cost-of-living adjustments in Social Security benefits.
Here is the truth about that outrageous idea: According to the National Committee to Protect Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM), if the chained-CPI had been used to calculate benefit cost-of-limit adjustments, instead of getting help with their rising costs, the elderly would have seen their benefits cut by $130 per year over the last three-year period from what they did get with the Social Security Administration just using the currently mandated CPI-W methodology.
For 30 years, the US Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), has been compiling and publishing an experimental consumer price index, the CPI-E, which seeks to more closely estimate the actual cost of living increase for the elderly. It's not a real scientific index, in that no actual data gathering specific to the elderly population is done, but adjustments to the already existing CPI-W index are made -- in particular increasing the weighting of medical costs from the CPI-U's 5.5% of total estimated personal expenditures for all American residents to 10.8% of total personal expenditures for the elderly. This is based upon research that shows that people over 65 spend about twice as much of their income on medical care as do younger people. That's not perfect, since the same research shows that those over 75 spend three times as much on medical care as those under 65, but hey, at least it's an improvement in recognizing reality.
That experimental index has never been used by the Social Security Administration. It should have been. But really, given that some 60 million people currently depend upon Social Security to get by, what should happen is that Congress should mandate -- and fund -- a genuine, peer-reviewed large-scale and apolitical academic study of the real cost of living for the elderly and the disabled, and the BLS should develop not an experimental but a real Cost of Living Index for the elderly based upon that study. Since such a huge proportion of the US population depends upon Social Security, and since it is such a huge part of federal expenditures, clearly there should be such a reliable and honest index to rely upon in calculating the benefits paid to those people.
It's time to stop the political games. Social Security is too important a program to have its benefits calculated based upon the politically motivated calculations one could make on a napkin, tinkering with existing CPI data that has nothing to do with the actual expenditures of the elderly and disabled.
The American people -- the elderly and disabled and their caregivers, their children and their grandchildren (all of whom will eventually be Social Security recipients someday too), should be demanding a real study, and a reality-based CPI for the elderly, and annual benefit adjustments that reflect the real world confronted by the elderly and disabled -- not the fantasies of political hacks in Congress.
* Nor can Clinton be trusted with that pledge. As David Sirota and Avi Asher-Shapiro report in Investment Business Daily, Clinton's close relationship with Tony James, president of Blackstone, the giant hedge fund and many think, her likely nominee for Treasury Secretary, has plans to privatize retirement by mandating all workers invest in privately managed equity funds.
FINAL DAY! This is urgent.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just hours left in our Spring Campaign, we're still falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Social Security got short shrift in the presidential "debates" this year, meriting only a brief mention at the end of the third event, and even then, only by Hillary Clinton, who vowed not to cut benefits in any effort to bolster the system's funding (a promise she was only grudgingly pushed into by Sen. Bernie Sanders' primary campaign).
But the truth is that benefits have been getting cut, are being cut in 2017, and unless something is done, will continue to be cut in the future. This is because the method used to calculate the annual adjustment for inflation each year is, to borrow a phrase popular with Donald Trump, "rigged."
Just consider this: The Consumer Price Index or CPI, actually the CPI-U version of the index which is used by nearly all federal agencies, including the IRS (which uses it to recalibrate tax brackets each year), found inflation in the US running at 0.73% in 2015, and at 2.07% year-to-date through September 2016 (it was 1.46% for the 12-month period Oct. 2015 through Sept. 2016, suggesting that the rate has actually been accelerating through the latter part of this year. Yet the modified version of the CPI, called CPI-W, which Congress since 1983 has mandated that the Social Security Administration use to calculate cost-of-living adjustments in Social Security benefits, showed no inflation in 2015, and only 0.3% inflation for 2016.
That's why Social Security beneficiaries -- the elderly, the disabled and dependent children of Social Security beneficiaries -- received no increase in their benefits during 2016 over the prior year, and why their benefit checks in 2017 will only increase by a paltry 0.3% (That would be a measly extra $4.50 a month or $54 for the year for someone receiving a typical Social Security benefit check of $1500 per month!).
Now reasonable people can argue whether the elderly and disabled spend more or less than other Americans on food, on entertainment, on transportation or on health care, but anyone who claims that the elderly have faced no higher costs during 2016 than in 2015, or that 2017 won't cost them more than $54 extra than they had to pay to survive in 2016 is, to put it simply, lying.
Anyone but a rich person who doesn't even look at what she or he is spending knows that groceries are more expensive, that bus and taxi fares are up, and that the cost of cars, car repairs and car insurance have risen. Health care costs are rising too, as well as health insurance costs. So are rents. Basically everything the elderly have to pay for has gone up in price each year, but their mainstay -- and for 33% of the elderly, Social Security is their only source of income, while for 61% it represents more than half their income -- has stayed essentially flat.
That reality is documented by the broader CPI-U measure used by the rest of the government. If that measure had been used to calculate Social Security cost-of-living benefits, instead of the CPI-W, that same typical recipient of $1500 in monthly Social Security benefits would have seen that checks rise by $11/month and $131 for the year in 2016 and would see a rise in 2017 of $30 per month and $360 for the year!
Obviously something is amiss here.
Yet incredibly, instead of taking action to correct this political stiffing of the elderly and infirm, many in Congress, and until enormous protests caused him to back off, President Obama, have been pushing the idea of actually making things worse by shifting from the already bad CPI-W index to something called a "chained-CPI" for calculating cost-of-living adjustments in Social Security benefits.
Here is the truth about that outrageous idea: According to the National Committee to Protect Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM), if the chained-CPI had been used to calculate benefit cost-of-limit adjustments, instead of getting help with their rising costs, the elderly would have seen their benefits cut by $130 per year over the last three-year period from what they did get with the Social Security Administration just using the currently mandated CPI-W methodology.
For 30 years, the US Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), has been compiling and publishing an experimental consumer price index, the CPI-E, which seeks to more closely estimate the actual cost of living increase for the elderly. It's not a real scientific index, in that no actual data gathering specific to the elderly population is done, but adjustments to the already existing CPI-W index are made -- in particular increasing the weighting of medical costs from the CPI-U's 5.5% of total estimated personal expenditures for all American residents to 10.8% of total personal expenditures for the elderly. This is based upon research that shows that people over 65 spend about twice as much of their income on medical care as do younger people. That's not perfect, since the same research shows that those over 75 spend three times as much on medical care as those under 65, but hey, at least it's an improvement in recognizing reality.
That experimental index has never been used by the Social Security Administration. It should have been. But really, given that some 60 million people currently depend upon Social Security to get by, what should happen is that Congress should mandate -- and fund -- a genuine, peer-reviewed large-scale and apolitical academic study of the real cost of living for the elderly and the disabled, and the BLS should develop not an experimental but a real Cost of Living Index for the elderly based upon that study. Since such a huge proportion of the US population depends upon Social Security, and since it is such a huge part of federal expenditures, clearly there should be such a reliable and honest index to rely upon in calculating the benefits paid to those people.
It's time to stop the political games. Social Security is too important a program to have its benefits calculated based upon the politically motivated calculations one could make on a napkin, tinkering with existing CPI data that has nothing to do with the actual expenditures of the elderly and disabled.
The American people -- the elderly and disabled and their caregivers, their children and their grandchildren (all of whom will eventually be Social Security recipients someday too), should be demanding a real study, and a reality-based CPI for the elderly, and annual benefit adjustments that reflect the real world confronted by the elderly and disabled -- not the fantasies of political hacks in Congress.
* Nor can Clinton be trusted with that pledge. As David Sirota and Avi Asher-Shapiro report in Investment Business Daily, Clinton's close relationship with Tony James, president of Blackstone, the giant hedge fund and many think, her likely nominee for Treasury Secretary, has plans to privatize retirement by mandating all workers invest in privately managed equity funds.
Social Security got short shrift in the presidential "debates" this year, meriting only a brief mention at the end of the third event, and even then, only by Hillary Clinton, who vowed not to cut benefits in any effort to bolster the system's funding (a promise she was only grudgingly pushed into by Sen. Bernie Sanders' primary campaign).
But the truth is that benefits have been getting cut, are being cut in 2017, and unless something is done, will continue to be cut in the future. This is because the method used to calculate the annual adjustment for inflation each year is, to borrow a phrase popular with Donald Trump, "rigged."
Just consider this: The Consumer Price Index or CPI, actually the CPI-U version of the index which is used by nearly all federal agencies, including the IRS (which uses it to recalibrate tax brackets each year), found inflation in the US running at 0.73% in 2015, and at 2.07% year-to-date through September 2016 (it was 1.46% for the 12-month period Oct. 2015 through Sept. 2016, suggesting that the rate has actually been accelerating through the latter part of this year. Yet the modified version of the CPI, called CPI-W, which Congress since 1983 has mandated that the Social Security Administration use to calculate cost-of-living adjustments in Social Security benefits, showed no inflation in 2015, and only 0.3% inflation for 2016.
That's why Social Security beneficiaries -- the elderly, the disabled and dependent children of Social Security beneficiaries -- received no increase in their benefits during 2016 over the prior year, and why their benefit checks in 2017 will only increase by a paltry 0.3% (That would be a measly extra $4.50 a month or $54 for the year for someone receiving a typical Social Security benefit check of $1500 per month!).
Now reasonable people can argue whether the elderly and disabled spend more or less than other Americans on food, on entertainment, on transportation or on health care, but anyone who claims that the elderly have faced no higher costs during 2016 than in 2015, or that 2017 won't cost them more than $54 extra than they had to pay to survive in 2016 is, to put it simply, lying.
Anyone but a rich person who doesn't even look at what she or he is spending knows that groceries are more expensive, that bus and taxi fares are up, and that the cost of cars, car repairs and car insurance have risen. Health care costs are rising too, as well as health insurance costs. So are rents. Basically everything the elderly have to pay for has gone up in price each year, but their mainstay -- and for 33% of the elderly, Social Security is their only source of income, while for 61% it represents more than half their income -- has stayed essentially flat.
That reality is documented by the broader CPI-U measure used by the rest of the government. If that measure had been used to calculate Social Security cost-of-living benefits, instead of the CPI-W, that same typical recipient of $1500 in monthly Social Security benefits would have seen that checks rise by $11/month and $131 for the year in 2016 and would see a rise in 2017 of $30 per month and $360 for the year!
Obviously something is amiss here.
Yet incredibly, instead of taking action to correct this political stiffing of the elderly and infirm, many in Congress, and until enormous protests caused him to back off, President Obama, have been pushing the idea of actually making things worse by shifting from the already bad CPI-W index to something called a "chained-CPI" for calculating cost-of-living adjustments in Social Security benefits.
Here is the truth about that outrageous idea: According to the National Committee to Protect Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM), if the chained-CPI had been used to calculate benefit cost-of-limit adjustments, instead of getting help with their rising costs, the elderly would have seen their benefits cut by $130 per year over the last three-year period from what they did get with the Social Security Administration just using the currently mandated CPI-W methodology.
For 30 years, the US Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), has been compiling and publishing an experimental consumer price index, the CPI-E, which seeks to more closely estimate the actual cost of living increase for the elderly. It's not a real scientific index, in that no actual data gathering specific to the elderly population is done, but adjustments to the already existing CPI-W index are made -- in particular increasing the weighting of medical costs from the CPI-U's 5.5% of total estimated personal expenditures for all American residents to 10.8% of total personal expenditures for the elderly. This is based upon research that shows that people over 65 spend about twice as much of their income on medical care as do younger people. That's not perfect, since the same research shows that those over 75 spend three times as much on medical care as those under 65, but hey, at least it's an improvement in recognizing reality.
That experimental index has never been used by the Social Security Administration. It should have been. But really, given that some 60 million people currently depend upon Social Security to get by, what should happen is that Congress should mandate -- and fund -- a genuine, peer-reviewed large-scale and apolitical academic study of the real cost of living for the elderly and the disabled, and the BLS should develop not an experimental but a real Cost of Living Index for the elderly based upon that study. Since such a huge proportion of the US population depends upon Social Security, and since it is such a huge part of federal expenditures, clearly there should be such a reliable and honest index to rely upon in calculating the benefits paid to those people.
It's time to stop the political games. Social Security is too important a program to have its benefits calculated based upon the politically motivated calculations one could make on a napkin, tinkering with existing CPI data that has nothing to do with the actual expenditures of the elderly and disabled.
The American people -- the elderly and disabled and their caregivers, their children and their grandchildren (all of whom will eventually be Social Security recipients someday too), should be demanding a real study, and a reality-based CPI for the elderly, and annual benefit adjustments that reflect the real world confronted by the elderly and disabled -- not the fantasies of political hacks in Congress.
* Nor can Clinton be trusted with that pledge. As David Sirota and Avi Asher-Shapiro report in Investment Business Daily, Clinton's close relationship with Tony James, president of Blackstone, the giant hedge fund and many think, her likely nominee for Treasury Secretary, has plans to privatize retirement by mandating all workers invest in privately managed equity funds.